Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
No bio...
User ID: 1226
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15hr ago
A major element of Orban's perceived badness was his alignment with Russia. He has more recently attracted attention in the US because a number of conservatives put forward Orbanism as a template for Republican governance.
Hungary is basically playing the same role for postliberalism as Venezuela for socialism: the country is going to shit, opponents like to point that out, and proponents feel compelled to defend it and pretend everything is peachy because otherwise they'd have to admit that every single attempt to make postliberalism the governing ideology ended detrimentally.
A trait that Chavista Venezuela (pre-Maduro, who turned into an old-fashioned dictator) and Orbanist Hungary share is being illiberal democracies, a perennial favorite of people trying to challenge liberal globalism. You end up defending these illiberal governments because the alternative is to admit that your ideology is not fit for purpose (or you go mask-off authoritarian, but that's pretty unusual in developed countries).
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1d ago
I think this is an interesting view into the CEO of one of the most important companies. My impression of the man has decreased, and increasing my concern for the kind of leaders and elites that is brewing up within American society.
I have become increasingly unimpressed by business elites in general. It's pretty safe to say that they are not stupid, but they don't seem to be inclined towards the qualities we would desire in political leadership. They are not brave or principled or wise; in practice they are primarily selected for ambition and acquisitiveness and their ability to please investors (which in turn tends to mean a kind of bloodless and unscrupulous administrative competence). However, their financial success endows them not only with the arrogance to believe their domain expertise generalizes (a common failing of the successful in any intellectual field) but the resources to bend reality to their preferences.
I don't know, maybe those landed gentry complaining about the venal upstart merchants were on to something (they weren't). Karp's attitude seems predicated on the assumption that tech elites have a special claim to being smarter/more capable, but it's not really in evidence (DOGE being a mere embarrassment is the kindest thing you can say about it). As I said, I do not think that they are stupid, but I do think they are fundamentally gamblers who have confused the combination of survivorship bias and mere competence for brilliance.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1d ago
The point is that "might makes right" apparently is defacto governing principle
I mean, it's not. There is a facile, trivial sense in which "might makes right" is true. If you can force people to do what you want then you can force people to do what you want. But in a far more important sense, it isn't true. No one rules alone, and the exercise of power requires both will and legitimacy. History has shown again and again that the weak can prevail against the strong by being willing to endure greater costs despite facial material inferiority, and that apparent strength can mask a lack of internal willpower.
A major failing of the midwit thugs that run the Trump administration is that they confuse power with entitlement. We see again and again from Trump himself as well as senior figures like Miller and Hegseth a belief that American power entitles them to do what they want - that others should give way to power because it is powerful. This is not the strong doing what they will, it is a moral appeal. It is not a conventional moral appeal, but it is a moral appeal nonetheless. The trouble for the Trump administration is that it is not a very compelling one. Mere force as a basis for legitimacy is not of interest to our longstanding allies (especially when that sentiment is turned on them, or when they are treated as vassals rather than allies). Hell, it is not of particular interest within the United States.
They compound this deficiency by trying to have it both ways. They sneer at international law and play the transactional bully when it serves them but also want to appeal to the institutions and allies they reject when it suits them. In fairness to the Trump administration, there's always been more than a whiff of "rules aren't for the people who make them" about the American-led order, but Trump et al don't even pay lip service to shared principles (and have been stunningly inept at diplomacy to boot). They cannot appeal to higher principles or laws because they themselves have rejected them.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
3d ago
It is not surprising that Republican voters voted for the Republican candidate. My point there is that the subset of non-Republican Trump supporters is relatively small. The subset of unenthusiastic non-Republican Trump supporters is necessarily even smaller. Combine this with the fact that Trump's approval amongst Republicans remains stratospheric and we can safely discard the idea that Trump's supporters generally saw themselves as holding their nose to pick the least bad option.
(FWIW, despite motioning towards it earlier I think the idea that voters are mostly picking from among perceived least bad options isn't really true; the people talking like this are a loud minority of cynics trying to rationalize their decision making)
It looks to me like Trump's approval among Republicans was mostly in the 80s while in office, dipped significantly while he was out of office, and is dipping again due to Iran.
That poll is from the beginning of March. As far as I can tell it has mostly bounced back amongst Republicans while falling elsewhere.
If you declare 'might makes right' to be your governing principle, it becomes much harder to appeal to other principles (like international law).
Isn't this combining two groups?
Not really. There are some marginal voters who voted for Trump but don't like him, but the vast bulk of Trump's ~~77.5m votes in 2024 came from Republicans. Amongst Republicans he is still incredibly popular, both in terms of raw approval and in terms of the fervency with which he is supported. The MAGA base has essentially devoured the rest of the Republican Party.
Because the superficial resemblance amuses me.
The gentry's critique of the commercial class rests on the proposition that they were more virtuous as leaders (and as people), but I don't think that is in evidence. There's significant overlap of vices (likely just a broad pathology of moneyed elites), and they, of course, have their own sets of problems. I also think
a) some of their criticisms didn't land even at the time and are clearly just kicking down at a rising rival power center
b) modern business elites are qualitatively different from their pre-20th century counterparts (I don't mean that in a better or worse sense, just that you are talking about different kinds of people)
In general, conscious efforts to cultivate virtuous and effective elites seems very hit or miss, and is more often claimed than realized. Landed gentry, e.g. weren't really trained to be leaders. They were a mostly-hereditary leisure class that also leveraged their economic and legal power into political and military influence.
More options
Context Copy link